The not so virgin Mary

[TMC]

This conversation started out interesting, but is devolving. Its like an argument between two people that each saw a different version of a movie. You can’t “prove” or
“disprove” perpetual virginity with bible passages. Catholics rely on Tradition, and protestants do not. The two sides of the argument rely on different authorities and will never agree on this point.

That said I also agree with this:

“[T]he Holy Saints and Holy Fathers in Holy Mother Church” are as incompetent to pronounce on this subject as anyone now living, since none of the Fathers was privy to any of the BVM’s gynaecological or obstretric details. The Fathers can posture & bully to their hearts’ content - & they did; just read Jerome ! - but they were in no position to know the facts. Therefore, their positive assertions to the contrary are worthless. We will never lack for moonshine & nonsense if we are guided by them.​

Useless arguments for the Perpetual Virginity are reasons to ignore or to deny it. The Catholic apologetic for it is so abysmal that its very unpersuasiveness is a reason to treat the whole set of beliefs as utter tosh . Catholics have to do better than serve up illogic & unreason & superstition & smart retorts - they degrade their own faith if they fail to, as well as insulting those they supposedly seek to persuade. People are are not all idiots, & if Catholicism has no solid reasons for what it claims to value, people are going, sooner or later, to notice.

I would add that, although the argumets are not particularly persuasive, I am happy to embrace the doctrine because the Church teaches it and it does not contradict or impair my Faith in any way. I find it of no importance one way or the other, so I go with Tradition. If the Church decided tomorrow that it has been wrong on the point, that would be OK, too. (Of course, I don’t see that happening, just saying.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[KJV]
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

Calling the character “firstborn” may be a reflection of Matthew’s consistent presentation of the main character in the gospel as King, Son of David, & so on. It may - or may not - be intended to give biographical information. There may also be an eschatological reference: he is called “first-born from the dead” by Paul, who puts the “Christological moment” at the Resurrection; Matthew, for his purposes, puts the CM much earlier, at the Nativity.​

The question is, what part or parts of the text are meant to be emphasised:

• “until”
• “firstborn”
• both the above

Many disagreements are caused by nothing more than out-of-the-way than differences in judging which words or phrases in a body of text are meant to be emphasised.

I think it is over-interpreting the text to look in it for an answer to the question whether Jesus had siblings or not; while that question may be of interest to later generations, it goes beyond what the Evangelist intended. He can’t answer way questions that it did not occur to him to consider. So for this evangelist, & perhaps for some, or all, of the others, it’s a pseudo-question.

Probably a lot of the issues that Christians get worked up about are pseudo-questions, if not in themselves, at least when considered as Biblical issues: simply because the Biblical authors were not addressing those particular issues in the way supposed, if at all.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m just wondering where you get your timeline on this and how you “know” that no one discussed this for “a hundred or more” years later? Just curious.

Because that’s the earliest time from which we have actual documents.

 

[TMC]

Probably a lot of the issues that Christians get worked up about are pseudo-questions, if not in themselves, at least when considered as Biblical issues: simply because the Biblical authors were not addressing those particular issues in the way supposed, if at all.

I am coming to believe that this is the single biggest problem most people have with biblical interpretation. You can’t learn about 16th Century English weather patterns by reading Shakespeare. That’s not because Shakespeare lied about the weather, or even because he didn’t care about the weather (he probably did), but because he didn’t **write about **the weather. Where weather is presented in his writings, e.g. King Lear, its not presented for its meteorlogical value. Everyone agrees on that.

The difficulty with the Gospels is that there are widely differing opinions on what topics the evangelists were meaning to communicate. Some people seem to think that they were communicating everything from history to science to genealogy, as a result people have been grafting “weather reports” onto the Gospels for years.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s right. The same bunch of people that brought you the very faith you live and breath (give or take a few hundred revisions to what was once an undisputed Christianity - there’s a bit of a theology gap between Catholicism and Latter Day Saints, as you know).

(grin) y’think?

Please remember something regarding that theological gap; well, a couple of things, actually:
First, in purely practical terms, there isn’t as large a theological gap between LDS and Catholicism as there is between LDS and Protestantism. Not, of course, that Catholics would see or admit it, but a whole bunch of Protestants do—and they, by the way, don’t think either one of us are Christian.

Second, there is this idea of an apostasy going on here. We think there was one. Catholics don’t.

That said, I find it ever a source of joy and thankfulness that Catholicism has kept so many of the truths of God and His Son throughout the years.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

“put her away privily” doesn’t quite mean sneaking her out.

I’m not sure what you mean by “sneaking her out.” Out of where? To what destination? Does the bible suggest that she was ever in danger because of her situation? I agree that the passages are not entirely clear regarding the circumstances. That’s why I was wondering if you were relying on your own personal reading or on some other bible study or commentary. If you are, I would really like to know from which theological perspective it is coming. LDS? Catholic? Protestant? Other?

dianaiad:

Timeline. She has the visit from the angel, then goes to see Elizabeth, then the kerfufle with Joseph happens after her return.

It’s not entirely clear from the gospels that account for the birth of Jesus (Luke and Matthew) took place as you suggest. Joseph could have learned of the pregnancy before Mary left to see her cousin in the hill country, and had his dream while Mary was staying away. It says Joseph pondered the thought of quietly divorcing Mary, but it does not say exactly when he started pondering this in light of Mary’s trip to visit Elizabeth and Zechariah. So, he could have known from the outset. (Just my personal reading of the situation too )

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

It isn’t that “we don’t want to think” otherwise. We just can’t with the knowledge we’ve received through the voice of the Holy Spirit, who speaks what he hears from the One who sent him to guide the Church to all truth (cf.Jn 16:12-13).

The question actually is: Why is it so “distasteful” to think of Mary having remained chaste in her marriage, now that the Church has been aware of her perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

The length of time that this has been believed has nothing to do with it. Remember, I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary might have remained celibate. I just don’t see any evidence to show that she did.

Or that it was required of her, or that she would be any less who she is if she were fully a wife to Joseph. She would not be any less the mother of Jesus, or the woman who raised Him, or the very, very special chosen ‘vessel’ of God: nothing about her would be one whit diminished if she had been fully a wife, or mother to other children besides her first born Son.

I guess that’s the problem; it is a cultural and theological paradigm switch that I simply do not understand. Perhaps I never will; I see nothing particularly holy about being married and not being fully intimate with one’s spouse; to me it would be like, oh…going to church and never taking the sacrament (or going to Mass and never partaking of the Eucharist)

…and you don’t understand why I don’t get it. Perhaps we should simply leave it there.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The length of time that this has been believed has nothing to do with it. Remember, I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mary might have remained celibate. I just don’t see any evidence to show that she did.

That’s not entirely the case. Do you mean that you don’t see an express affirmative statement in the bible that supports such a conclusion? As has been pointed out on this forum many times, there is the Tradition of the christian church, which taught uniformly in her earlier history that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.

dianaiad:

Or that it was required of her, or that she would be any less who she is if she were fully a wife to Joseph. She would not be any less the mother of Jesus, or the woman who raised Him, or the very, very special chosen ‘vessel’ of God: nothing about her would be one whit diminished if she had been fully a wife, or mother to other children besides her first born Son.

I think that in one aspect you are correct in suggesting that the call to married life and motherhood are in no way less than a person called to live a celibate life. However, you are overlooking a significant distinction. This woman called Mary was chosen from all time and eternity to be the mother of God made flesh. She carried, birthed, nursed, bathed and intimately raised God in His humanity. This calling is something beyond raising a family. Assuming that Mary had children other than Jesus, how would they feel about having God as a half-brother? What sort of family dynamic would be at play among the half-siblings of the Son of God? Would this detract from Mary’s role as the Mother of God, or would it somehow add to salvation history?

The teaching of Mary as ever-virgin comes from the Tradition of the Church that sees Mary (espoused of the Holy Spirit) as the type of the Church (the bride of Christ). It would not be fitting for Mary, having been consecrated by God to bear the Second Person of the Trinity, to thereafter resume the role of begetting children with Joseph. There is a sacredness to her womb that - to Catholics - it seems more fitting to leave untouched. So, while I see nothing belittling with motherhood, I see no reason for assuming - contrary to Church teaching - that Mary went on to resume a “normal” life of begetting and raising children with Joseph. To the contrary, I see all kinds of practical and theological problems arising from such an inference.

dianaiad:

I guess that’s the problem; it is a cultural and theological paradigm switch that I simply do not understand. Perhaps I never will; I see nothing particularly holy about being married and not being fully intimate with one’s spouse; to me it would be like, oh…going to church and never taking the sacrament (or going to Mass and never partaking of the Eucharist)

The way I see it, your conclusion about Mary would be (please pardon the analogy) like an LDS member using the Temple at Salt Lake City as a pig pen. The building certainly would provide sufficient shelter, etc., and there’s nothing inherently wrong about raising pigs. But using the temple to raise and keep them would be entirely inappropriate and downright insulting to those who understood the sanctity of the building. I’m not saying this to insult you, but to impart to you on a more visceral level the way I feel about the suggestion that Mary had other children with Joseph after giving birth to the Savior.

Peace,
Robert

 

[chaplinmike]

Joseph became the guardian of Mary, he protected her.
It has traditonally been thought that he was older
We don’t read much of Joseph in the scriptures, we don’t read of him at the wedding feast or his son’s crucifixion for example.

A question:What do you think Mary meant by asking the angel “how can this be since I do not know man.”

Why would she ask such a question if she didn’t intend on remaining a virgin. Wouldn’t she just assume she’d have to have sex with her husband Joseph?

Gregory of Nyssa understood this in support of the view that Mary had taken a lifelong vow of virginity, even in marriage:

For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature?

Augistine said

Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin…If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!

Vows taken by a married woman from the book of Numbers…

[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, [7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. [8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Joseph became the guardian of Mary, he protected her.

According to the bible Mary had been betrothed to Joseph before they had come together.
Matthew 1:18.
So even at this point Mary and Joseph were married in every way except to consamate.
Then an angel of the lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife. v.20. So according to the scriptures Mary and Joseph were husband and wife. He was her husband and not her guardian. You can look up the definitions for each you will find each has a different role.

What do you think Mary meant by asking the angel “how can this be since I do not know man.”

I think she meant what she said. To know a women biblicaly speaking would mean intimately
and since she was betrothed to Joesph her husband. see Matt. 1:18 Would mean they would not have had any relations until Joseph had taken Mary to be His wife. See Matt.1:20

For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature?/
And she did as the scriptures clearly say …Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called Him Jesus. Matt.1:24-25

A couple things stick out here friend. One being yes Joseph took Mary to be His wife meaning he took her into his house, and two the bible says he did not know her until she had brought forth her first Son. I would say to that the words “did not know her until” would mean he did know her intimately until after she had brought forth her first born Son. Meaning that they had not had any sexual relations yet!

Why because we know from scripture she knew Joseph already. He and she were betrothed Matt. 1:18. Aqusations of unfaithfulness had a risen and Joseph her husband was minded to put her away. v.19. So they knew each other right? So why would the bible say He took his wife and did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn Son.
And another point why does the bible feel the need to call Jesus her first born Son? instead of her only Son or even until she brought forth a Son?

 

[traillius]

First,last, and only are not mutually exclusive. For example I am the first in my birth family to buy a house in the town I live in. Most likely I will be the last to do so. And the only one as well. Nonetheless I am the first in the category. I am the first child of my parents to be named mike, and the last and only child of theirs to be so named. My parents are divorced, and both are beyond child making age, so they won’t have any other children. Hence I am the first and also the only. In fact, sometimes, first last and only are inseparable. For instance, the first person that another person has intercourse with, hopefully on one’s wedding night, That person will be the first last and only to * ahem * defeat their virginity * an act that can never be repeated. Jesus being the first born, doesn’t mean he wasn’t the only born and the last born, to Mary.

 

[GodIsGracious]

First,last, and only are not mutually exclusive. For example I am the first in my birth family to buy a house in the town I live in. Most likely I will be the last to do so. And the only one as well. Nonetheless I am the first in the category. I am the first child of my parents to be named mike, and the last and only child of theirs to be so named. My parents are divorced, and both are beyond child making age, so they won’t have any other children. Hence I am the first and also the only. In fact, sometimes, first last and only are inseparable. For instance, the first person that another person has intercourse with, hopefully on one’s wedding night, That person will be the first last and only to * ahem * defeat their virginity * an act that can never be repeated. Jesus being the first born, doesn’t mean he wasn’t the only born and the last born, to Mary.

Ooh, good one! I am my mom’s first, only, and last too!

 

[chaplinmike]

First,last, and only are not mutually exclusive. For example I am the first in my birth family to buy a house in the town I live in. Most likely I will be the last to do so. And the only one as well. Nonetheless I am the first in the category. I am the first child of my parents to be named mike, and the last and only child of theirs to be so named. My parents are divorced, and both are beyond child making age, so they won’t have any other children. Hence I am the first and also the only. In fact, sometimes, first last and only are inseparable. For instance, the first person that another person has intercourse with, hopefully on one’s wedding night, That person will be the first last and only to * ahem * defeat their virginity * an act that can never be repeated. Jesus being the first born, doesn’t mean he wasn’t the only born and the last born, to Mary.

interesting but I believe the term to be used would not be first then. Like your example of first time buyer you said " most likely I will be the last. " until that time came you would be none as the first but if lets say all your other sibs passed away without purchasing a home then you would be none as the only child to purchase a home.

And again friend the anology of the Mikes is a little off. You were the first yes but no one would use that term He was the first mike to be born of his parents since no other children would be called Mike. You would be none as your parents son Mike. Not your parents first son named Mike that wouldnt make any since.

Also this is something that is argumentive. We could both argue what firstborn means. See in the case of Samuel it says about his birth Hanna concieved and brought forth a son. 1 Sam.1:20. Why? Because Hanna had no other children. What about the rest of my post you never adressed it?

 

[GodIsGracious]

And again friend the anology of the Mikes is a little off. You were the first yes but no one would use that term He was the first mike to be born of his parents since no other children would be called Mike. You would be none as your parents son Mike. Not your parents first son named Mike that wouldnt make any since.

Tell this to any of George Foreman’s children:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman

 

[LilyM]

According to the bible Mary had been betrothed to Joseph before they had come together.
Matthew 1:18.
So even at this point Mary and Joseph were married in every way except to consamate.
Then an angel of the lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife. v.20. So according to the scriptures Mary and Joseph were husband and wife. He was her husband and not her guardian. You can look up the definitions for each you will find each has a different role.

I think she meant what she said. To know a women biblicaly speaking would mean intimately
and since she was betrothed to Joesph her husband. see Matt. 1:18 Would mean they would not have had any relations until Joseph had taken Mary to be His wife. See Matt.1:20

And she did as the scriptures clearly say …Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her first born Son. And he called Him Jesus. Matt.1:24-25

A couple things stick out here friend. One being yes Joseph took Mary to be His wife meaning he took her into his house, and two the bible says he did not know her until she had brought forth her first Son. I would say to that the words “did not know her until” would mean he did know her intimately until after she had brought forth her first born Son. Meaning that they had not had any sexual relations yet!

Why because we know from scripture she knew Joseph already. He and she were betrothed Matt. 1:18. Aqusations of unfaithfulness had a risen and Joseph her husband was minded to put her away. v.19. So they knew each other right? So why would the bible say He took his wife and did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn Son.
And another point why does the bible feel the need to call Jesus her first born Son? instead of her only Son or even until she brought forth a Son?

The same Bible commands every Israelite to bring their firstborn son for presentation in the Temple (as happeened with Jesus himself) after 40 days - at the same time the mother went for her purification ritual.

Now a couple might well know even at such an early date that their firstborn child is ALSO going to be their last and only child - Sarah for example, who certainly couldn’t hope for the additional miracle of another child after having Isaac at such an advanced age!

And doctors and midwives were skilled enough even at that time to know in some cases that a woman wasn’t going to have any more children than the one. But such a couple, who knew they would be blessed with only one, wouldn’t feel exempt from the commandment specified for the ‘firstborn’ child simply because their particular ‘firstborn’ was also going to be their lastborn and only born! So in essence they (and the law) DID apply the term firstborn to an only child.

 

[chaplinmike]

Tell this to any of George Foreman’s children:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman

Thats a good one and thats not the norm? Please

 

[chaplinmike]

The same Bible commands every Israelite to bring their firstborn son for presentation in the Temple (as happeened with Jesus himself) after 40 days - at the same time the mother went for her purification ritual.

Now a couple might well know even at such an early date that their firstborn child is ALSO going to be their last and only child - Sarah for example, who certainly couldn’t hope for the additional miracle of another child after having Isaac at such an advanced age!

And doctors and midwives were skilled enough even at that time to know in some cases that a woman wasn’t going to have any more children than the one. But such a couple, who knew they would be blessed with only one, wouldn’t feel exempt from the commandment specified for the ‘firstborn’ child simply because their particular ‘firstborn’ was also going to be their lastborn and only born! So in essence they (and the law) DID apply the term firstborn to an only child.

Like Ive said before the subject is argumentive and speculative We can argue this tell the cows come home with nothing to show for it. What about the rest of my post?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Thats a good one and thats not the norm? Please

I know. I was trying to lighten the discussion because I know this can be very intense.

 

[chaplinmike]

I know. I was trying to lighten the discussion because I know this can be very intense.

Agreed.

 

[mark_a]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[KJV]
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

Here’s your aaaHHHAAAA moment! You’ve proven from scripture that the Catholic teaching is wrong. Now you can give yourself permission to doubt even the moral teachings of the Church.

Congratulations.

Even if you should one day find yourself agreeing with Catholic teaching about Mary, there’s always confession, papal infallibility, the real presence, justifaction, Jesus divinity, Trinitarianism, the incarnation, and bingo to put your mind at ease.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Here’s your aaaHHHAAAA moment! You’ve proven from scripture that the Catholic teaching is wrong. Now you can give yourself permission to doubt even the moral teachings of the Church.

Congratulations.

Even if you should one day find yourself agreeing with Catholic teaching about Mary, there’s always confession, papal infallibility, the real presence, justifaction, Jesus divinity, Trinitarianism, the incarnation, and bingo to put your mind at ease.

LOL! I know my mom isn’t at ease at bingo,until she wins!